they wrote an article about ecology and shared it with the project stakeholders.
DEEP ECOLOGY FROM A SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE
Militaru
Gabriela and Trancă Georgiana
Colegiul
Național „Elena Cuza”, Craiova, România
In simple terms, ethics is a side of philosophy that
deals with researching moral issues. Or in other words, ethics is trying to
answer the question "What can I know about what I have to do?" in
matters such as human or animal rights, human freedom issues, euthanasia, etc.
It is difficult to say whether or not ethics manages to solve certain questions
because, being not universally valid truths, this side of philosophy risks
being accused of subjectivism. However, this should not discourage discussions
on certain issues such as ECOLOGY.
In recent decades, human activities have often had
negative repercussions on nature, especially as human influences on the
environment are increasing as a result of population growth, human
agglomerations and the development of industries and technologies. It is known
that only in the last month two of the most powerful states in the world (Spain
and China) have instituted high pollution alert due to the intense activity of
factories, but also of the noxiousness caused by the multitude of vehicles that
cross cities daily. Under these conditions, contemporary environmental issues
increasingly demand the intervention of ethics in solving their problems. One
solution to this could be the use of deep ecology, a notion introduced by Arne
Naess in the early 1970s. The Norwegian philosopher has formulated a set of
principles that could be the basis of any ecological philosophy. However, as
with any ethical issue, in the case of deep ecology there are both pros and
cons.
Pro arguments:
1. Naess's ecological philosophy holds that the
well-being and development of human and non-human life on Earth have priority
in themselves, that is, beyond their usefulness for human purposes. It follows
that nature should not be exploited just for the sake of people, but must be
valued as it is.
2. People can diminish the richness of nature only to
meet their vital needs (for example, food), which in no way encourages the
waste of natural resources.
3. In order to diminish the waste, it is the case that the
global population decreases, in these conditions decreasing the consumption of
resources the result being the assessment of the quality of life rather than
adhering to an increasingly high standard of living.
Of course, for these arguments a number of arguments can
be brought against:
1. Stopping nature exploitation limits technological
progress.
2. What for some means wasting resources for others can
mean diversifying the range of possibilities for the benefit of humanity and
respect for the uniqueness of each human individual.
3. To reduce the number of the population means to limit
the right of people to reproduction.
It is important to note, however, that the existence of
arguments against a problem should not discourage discussions on this topic or any
other of general interest regarding ethics.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder